Month: January 2009

Ominous

by tristero

Duncan says:

…Dems should’ve pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.

And Nate says:

But does it do the [Republican] party as a whole any good for having opposed the bill unanimously? With headlines like the one in the Associated Press, it’s hard to imagine so. Their unanimous opposition reads as an emphatic rejection of the President and the President’s attempts at “bipartisanship”. And the President is very popular right now

I don’t think, in either case, that is exactly what’s going on. I think it’s far more ominous than that. I think “be afraid, be very afraid” is the only attitude that makes sense of both Obama’s call for bipartisanship – which is hardly pointless -and the GOP’s refusal of same in the face of the president’s popularity.

The rejection of bipartisanship by the Republicans should be perceived in terms of their long term strategy. They know that the depression has just begun. The worse is yet to come. How bad will it be? Far worse than anyone so far has imagined, and we’ve all imagined it as pretty bad. It will exceed our most extreme fantasies. (In fact, my father, who turns 100 next month (!) said this is shaping up as much worse than the thirties; I think he may be right.) The GOP knows that no feasible stimulus plan, no matter how large or well-crafted, can avert catastrophe. They intend to refuse to go along with anything Obama proposes, wait until disaster hits,and then – counting on the country’s short memory span as well as the complicity of the media – blame Obama, Democrats, and liberalism for destroying the economy.

Obama also knows that economic disaster cannot be avoided and that it will be far worse than anything anyone alive – other than centenarians like my Dad – has ever seen; that’s why his inaugural address was so grim. He also knows that no stimulus plan will work. And he knows he will be blamed for it when the misery adds up. Therefore, he is trying like hell to get the GOP to sign up, at least partially, for his proposal so he can spread the blame, This is after all, a time-honored political tactic, used by Bush, for example, to claim bipartisan authorization for the invasion of Iraq.

Since the GOP won’t ever play – they’re not stupid about their self-interest, after all – what is to be done? First, like Duncan, I think the Obama administration must propose the most responsible stimulus package they can, focused entirely on serious efforts to prop up the economy rather than appeasing the Republicans’ special interests. Furthermore, they must propose legislation that protects as much as possible the middle class and the poor from the economic tsunami the Bush administration unleashed on this country and that has only begun to be felt. It may not work in staving off an economic collapse, but the crash will be so bad that any amelioration of its effects will be useful.

Naturally, Obama needs to take the high road and continue to call for “bipartisanship.” But, as the GOP continuously refuses to go along, the Democratic party, and progressives, must attack on two fronts. First, they must accuse the GOP of lack of patriotism, of refusing to support the president in a time of extreme crisis. Second, they must never, not for a single news cycle, let the country forget that a Republican president, and a Republican legislature is to blame for the dreadful shape of the US economy.

Remember: as Limbaugh said, Republicans want the president and his policies to fail. Their refusal, to a person, to vote for the stimulus bill demonstrates that they expect the worst to happen no matter what is done. They intend fully to exploit that. Remember Carter’s “maliaise” and Reagan’s “morning in America?” Republicans see a repeat of that dynamic, but this time on steroids. That is why we must never let the country forget who wrecked the economy: George W. Bush, his Republican enablers in Congress, and the literally bankrupt philosophy of conservatism.

Punk’d

by digby

Following up on dday’s post below, I’d just like to expand a little bit on the Halperin comment. In case you didn’t see it, here it is:

He could have gone for centrist compromises. You can say to your own party ‘sorry some of you liberals aren’t going to like it but I am going to change this legislation radically to get a big centrist majority rather than an all-Democratic vote’. He chose not to do that, that’s the exact path that George Bush took for most of his presidency with disastrous consequences for bipartisanship and solving big problems.”

I’m sure you recall how recalcitrant the Democrats were during the Bush years — when they helped him pass every crackpot idea he ever had, even after he had stolen the 2000 election.

There will be no change without changing the village. They live in an alternate universe in which no matter what the election returns say, conservative policies are always preferred and liberals are the reason for the country’s problems. This is what “post-partisanship” means in practice. The majority of people may want something different, but the conservatives don’t and they still rule the political establishment, if only out of habit and by default. The only question is how long the Obama administration will persist in believing that they should appease the villagers rather than taking their case directly to the American people.

We’ve seen this movie before. It was 1993 and we had another young president (faced then with a strong and growing Republican party) who had promised to end the “braindead politics of the past.” The forces of the status quo schooled him right out of the gate about who was in charge and no matter how much he appeased them, it was never enough. Clinton survived a vicious partisan onslaught, but he also had the benefit of a quick recovery from a mild recession and a technology bubble of massive proportions to help him.

Obama is facing a weaker Republican Party but a much bigger set of problems, with the stakes being exponentially higher. We just don’t have time for this nonsense again. At some point, the Democrats are going to have to confront their central political problem, which is that the conservatives are not appeasable and that political and media elites have either been brainwashed by conservative propaganda or are conservatives by choice and they have to convince the citizenry that their ideology is better for their personal well being and the well being of the country. Until that happens, the conservatives will remain in power even as an opposition force and their failed ideology will continue to destroy this country. This isn’t a game anymore. They have to pass good policies.

.

Impact Of Conservative Demagoguery

by dday

The result of the recent conservative dominance on cable, even if not a lot of people are watching, is a growing amount of misinformation delivered to the public, over the course of many years. One of the reasons we focus on this and think it’s so important is that progressives are cutting through 30 years’ worth of rhetoric designed to push conservative movement ideas into the mainstream. And without a sustained effort to demystify those ideas, they will hold in the minds of the public EVEN IF the result of those ideas has been disaster. Republicans destroyed the country and people fully understand that, and yet their ideas haven’t been invalidated. See this Rasmussen poll.

Paul Krugman, last year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for economics and a regular columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote that you should “write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.”

If you follow that advice, you’ll be writing off a majority of Americans. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53% say that it’s always better to cut taxes. Only 24% share Krugman’s views.

Krugman’s views are a bit more aligned with public opinion when he asserts that “public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan.” On this point, the public is evenly divided–34% agree, 34% disagree, and 32% are not sure.

While overall public opinion is divided on that question, there is less public support for another Krugman claim. The columnist wrote that “it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed that view on ABC’s This Week on Sunday when she said, “There is more bang for the buck by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.”

Thirty-one percent (31%) agree with Krugman and Pelosi that “public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts.” Forty-two percent (42%) disagree.

Now, running polls on factual statements by Paul Krugman isn’t going to get the best result, especially because Krugman is a high-profile liberal and a small segment of the population will knee-jerk dismiss anything he says. The point is that conservative ideas live on despite the fall of conservatives nationally. Voters definitively favor Democrats over Republicans, but the ideas remain.

I try to think about the reaction to yesterday’s party-line vote from the perspective of a low-information non-junkie. They saw Republicans vote as a bloc against a popular President who wants to create jobs. That’s probably a net negative for Republicans as people. It has nothing to do with invalidating their ideas. And the Village obviously isn’t going to help with that. Here’s chief lickspittle Mark Halperin explaining how Obama “didn’t go for centrist compromises” in the stimulus.

This is a really bad sign for Barack Obama to try to change Washington… he needs bipartisan solutions. They went for it, and they came up with zero… The other thing he could have done, you can go for centrist compromises, you can say to your own party, sorry, some of you liberals aren’t going to like it, but I’m going to change this legislation radically to get a big centrist majority, rather than an all-Democratic vote. He chose not to do that. That’s the exact path that George Bush took for most of his Presidency, with disastrous consequences for bipartisanship and solving big problems.

See, it was all Obama’s fault. He didn’t compromise enough and kick the left. By the way, I don’t remember the media reporting on those “disastrous consequences” of George Bush’s approach in real time, do you? Funny how bipartisanship only matters with a Democratic President.

I don’t think Halperin’s insanity will be listened to by the public, but the effect here is that conservative ideas are still respected while conservatives aren’t. And so tax cuts will always be prominent in bills like this, limiting their effectiveness. “Market solutions” will always be preferred. People will think that conservative solutions done right are the path to success. And that is a looming disaster.

As it stands right now, there’s one man being listened to seriously that can command an audience: the President. He hasn’t used the bully pulpit to a great degree yet, though I assume that’s coming. Until conservative ideas are rejected, we will continue in this muddle, blocked from the tools we need to get out of this economic crisis.

.

MIA or AWOL?

by digby

I’ve mentioned several times over the past few days that the Democrats have no presence on the news networks defending the stimulus plan or their president. And since the Republicans are dominating the debate, their lies and misrepresentations are reverberating through the beltway echo chamber.

Think Progress ran the numbers which show that I’m not hallucinating. This is ridiculous:

On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.

The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:

The Republicans obviously have a media strategy. Why don’t the Democrats?

Update: Barney Frank was on Larry King (hosted by John King)and was effective. Perhaps he could write up some simple talking points for his colleagues.

Update: On a related issue, here’s Dana Milbank trying very, very hard to be as bitchy, shallow and sophomoric as Maureen Dowd. I’m afraid he fails even by those low standards. Dowd actually has a clever way with words, however destructive and mean they may be, and assassinates characaters with her own original cruelty. Milbank is just a sad wallflower, desperately trying to be one of the popular girls but destined to be the object of their derision and the butt of their jokes.

I’ll look forward to Somerby’s thorough takedown of this tired and bizarrely anachronistic column.

.

Trust

by digby

From Kagro:

Special “F. You” Note: To Blue Dog Jim Cooper (D-TN-05), who back in December extracted from the Obama team the promise of the convening of a “fiscal responsibility summit,” which he wanted to be included in the stimulus. Instead, Obama agreed two weeks in advance of the stimulus vote to convene such a summit in February, and I said Obama should have waited to see that Cooper and the Blue Dogs pony up on the stimulus before agreeing. Well, Obama didn’t wait, and Cooper (and five other Blue Dogs) didn’t show. What a surprise. There’s still time to disinvite them, of course. Think that’ll happen?

I guess all the Clintonites in the Obama administration forgot about Old Jim’s proclivities on these things. They should have called Mike Lux, who raised the alarm a year ago when the Obama campaign started using Cooper as a spokesman on health care policy:

I was part of the Clinton White House team on the health care reform issue in 1993/94, and no Democrat did more to destroy our chances in that fight than Jim Cooper. We had laid down a marker very early that we thought universal coverage was the most essential element to getting a good package, saying we were to happy to negotiate over the details but that universality was our bottom line. Cooper, a leader of conservative Dems on the health care issue, instead of working with us, came out early and said universality was unimportant, and came out with a bill that did almost nothing in terms of covering the uninsured. He quickly became the leading spokesman on the Dem side for the insurance industry position, and undercut us at every possible opportunity, basically ending any hopes we had for a unified Democratic Party position. I was never so delighted to see a Democrat lose as when he went down in the 1994 GOP tide.

Unfortunately, he came back, like a bad penny.

Perhaps the administration thinks that not playing the blame game with Cooper on this stimulus bill will buy them his loyalty on health care down the road (as the ever so perspicacious Chuck Todd predicts.)

Considering his history, I sure wouldn’t bet on it …

.

Who’s Your Daddy?

by digby

Republican Phil Gingrey made a big, big boo-boo. He criticized Chairman Rush. One simply doesn’t do that and expect to remain in good standing in the Party:

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) apologized Wednesday to “my fellow conservatives” for comments critical of talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh – saying he sees “eye-to-eye” with Limbaugh and that his remarks defending House Republican leadership came across more harshly than intended.

He also took issue with a headline on a Politico story about his comments, saying he never told Limbaugh to “back off,” as the headline read.

“I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent,” Gingrey said in a statement. “I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.”

Gingrey said he issued the statement because of a high volume of calls and correspondence to his office after the Politico article and wanted to speak directly to “grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you. I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend our traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn.”

“As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh.”

[…]

Limbaugh had earlier responded to Gingrey’s critique, telling Politico in an email, “I’m sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don’t show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won’t continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grass roots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we’ll know it when we see it.”

Limbaugh has been one of the top leaders of the conservative movement for a very long time and the conservative movement owns the Republican Party. He had veto power over any legislation he didn’t approve of under a Republican president. We saw it in action on the immigration bill. He’s just exerting his authority as political leadership is wont to do. I don’t see this as being particularly new or surprising.

Update: Howie has the full rundown on the Limbaugh controversy.

And can I say how much I love Rep. Alan Grayson?

“Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we’d all need pain killers.”

I can hear the keening and shrieking beginning already….

Update: Jamison Foser reminds us of the fact that Limbaugh was called a mainstream conservative by none other than beltway CW maven Howie Kurtz.

And does everyone remember this call to arms, just a little over a year ago?

Battle lines are drawn over conservative radio
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 10/03/07 07:41 PM [ET]

House Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. On Monday evening, Republicans filed a rule with the House Rules Committee laying the groundwork for a petition that would force action on protecting radio from government regulation later this fall.

The move comes at a time when Democrats have launched a coordinated attack on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, accusing him of disparaging American troops critical of the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.”

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said broadcasters should be required to give listeners both sides of political issues so voters can make informed decisions.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and interference from the government.

Republicans’ concern has grown as Democrats have waged a battle against Limbaugh in recent days. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, Mark Mays, calling on him to denounce Limbaugh’s remarks.

“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”

Pence, a former professional talk radio host, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on Monday sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) demanding a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

In their letters, Pence and Walden cited broad support for their bill as well as a vote on an appropriations amendment earlier this year showing that many Democrats are wary of angering politically influential radio personalities such as Limbaugh. The Republican lawmakers gave Democratic leaders a deadline of the end of next week.

“Over 200 of our colleagues have joined us as co-sponsors of this important measure,” Pence and Walden wrote.

“Considering the significance associated with protecting free speech, we respectfully request that you schedule floor action on H.R. 2905 by Friday, October 12, 2007. While we may not always agree with those who are on the airwaves, as members of Congress and freedom-loving Americans, we should never back down from an opportunity to defend their rights or speak their piece.”

Of course, Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. In fact, he was apparently the lader of the Democrats too — after all, these “Republican lawmakers gave Democrats a deadline” when the Democrats were in the majority.

(And I didn’t know that Pence was an ex-radio talk show host, but now it all makes sense.)

.

Dick

by digby

Huzzah to Joan Walsh who has far, far more patience than I would have had in dealing with that misogynist moron, Dick Armey. What a piece of garbage:

Former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) still needs some lessons in etiquette.

Armey, who once referred to fellow Rep. Barney Frank as “Barney Fag,” lost his temper during an appearance with Salon Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh on MSNBC’s Hardball Wednesday, and lashed out, saying:

I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, ’cause I surely wouldn’t have to listen to that prattle from you every day.

Joan responded, “Well, that makes two of us.” She’ll have more to say in her blog later on. Video of the appearance is below; the exchange comes about 9:42 in.

.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;} Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If you are unfamiliar with Dick Armey’s bizarroworld discussion about the economy, where the “income redistributonists” have screwed up the economy by not giving enough tax cuts to the rich, you will understand why we are in this mess today. (And you will understand why my head explodes when I see the Republicans on television sanctimoniously lecturing everyone about economics.

Dick Armey is one of the foremost conservative economic gurus in the land and is one of the guys they turn to for serious policy advice. I’m not kidding.

Joan, you are my hero.

Update: John Cole has more on Dick Armey’s insanity.

.

Not One Republican Vote

by dday

Post-partisanship lives. The stimulus package just passed the House, with the billions in corporate tax cuts, without the money to re-sod the National Mall, without the money for family planning for poor people, and without one Republican vote. Without one. Final vote was 244-188 as 11 “Democrats” crossed over. According to Rep. Pete Hoekstra’s Twitter feed, that means they win!

Interesting! The bi partisan vote on stimulus was no. It wasn’t the winning vote but the only vote that received both R and D votes.

During the debate, Republicans offered a substitute amendment which had flat tax cuts (including for the wealthy) and eliminated a good portion of the spending. Earl Blumenauer:

“I’m glad, however, that they’ve offered this alternative because it puts in clear relief what their priorities are – take money away from 95% of the American public and invest in the few who need it the least. Take money away from 4 million students who would have this tax relief. And my favorite, is actually continue to game the alternative minimum tax to purposely push more people into it, with tax gimmicks -rather than work with us in fundamental tax reform that doesn’t subject more people, and give us this biannual charade.”

I don’t know how you can come away from this sideshow thinking anything but that Republicans are determined to have their Great Depression and that they openly wish failure upon the United States, or at least no economic recovery for anyone who needs it. Americans seem to have gotten that message too; it’s why Democrats have a 24-point generic ballot lead at this point for the next election.

Of course, that won’t hold forever. And that’s especially true if the economy is still sour in 2 or 4 years. Ultimately that will be the final judge, not if some random re-sodding of the National Mall feature is in or out of the bill. So pre-compromising to attract non-existent Republican support was, in a word, insane. Now Obama had better hope those Republican ideas (which aren’t overwhelming, but they’re still there) baked into the package work. I’m not holding my breath.

And let’s hope that, in the future, the only people who sill listen to the ideas of Republicans are cable news talent bookers.

.

Comic Timing

by digby

We noticed the other day that there were no comics anymore in our little local rag. Since they were the main reason we often picked it up, we probably won’t pick it up anymore. Now I find out that the alt-weeklies of Village Voice media are dropping all their syndicated comics as well, which includes the great Tom Tomorrow. That is a very, very bad business decision.

Tom Tomorrow suggests that we nicely contact our local weekly and request that they change their minds.

I would suggest that you all buy Tom Tomorrow’s latest book:

You need it. And we all need Tom Tomorrow to help us understand our politics. We really do.

.

Change From The Bottom Up On Transit

by dday

The passage of the Nadler amendment restoring $3 billion in transit funds into the stimulus is a big deal, and not because of the amount. There are still more funds for corporate tax cuts in the bill than transit, which is pathetic. But in this case, the online community (led by Chris Bowers at Open Left and leaders on this issue in the Congress like Peter DeFazio used a public/private strategy to get this passed. In public DeFazio went on Rachel Maddow’s show and others to decry the pittance given to transit in the bill. In private Congresscritters and constituents whipped members of the Rules Committee to get the amendment placed on the calendar for the full House. It was a true citizen lobbying effort, and it had nothing to do with “Obama’s list” or any other such thing. It was engaged citizens, mature enough to navigate the corridors of power, identifying and working toward a progressive goal. We also see progressive House members willing to buck their leadership on battles they can win, and drive successful policy.

Thing is, spending on infrastructure like rail and transit cannot end with the stimulus package. Indeed, mass transit projects require long-term funding and not random moments like an economic crisis to get a quick infusion of funds. The latest report by the American Society of Civil Engineers is out, showing historic neglect to our nation’s infrastructure, and massive funding needed to fix it:

Because decades of underfunding and inattention have endangered our nation’s infrastructure, $2.2 trillion in repairs and upgrades is needed over the next five years to meet adequate conditions. That’s the conclusion of ASCE’s new 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, released today, which assigns an overall grade of D to the nation as well as individual grades in 15 infrastructure categories. Since ASCE’s last assessment in 2005, there has been little change in the condition of America’s roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and other public works. With the nation’s infrastructure receiving renewed attention from the White House, Congress, and the public as a vital part of an economic stimulus package, the Report Card offers informed guidance from professional engineers on where funds would best be spent.

I would modify that to say “decades of conservatives telling you that ‘your money’ shouldn’t be spent on waste,” not “decades of underfunding and inattention,” but I like to be specific. The report card is here, and the assessment is stark.

If we’re going to both provide a long-term boost to the economy and create a more sustainable and clean energy infrastructure, we’re going to need more than $3 billion dollar amendments. We need to create a National Infrastructure Bank to ensure attention is paid to this crucial sector over time. And we need to use the transportation fund and rework the formula, so that more than 20 cents on the dollar from the fund goes to transit. There are a host of things we can do, and I think the progressive movement is learning how to do it.

Postscript: Just to clarify, in reference to Digby’s earlier post: I’m not sold that the stimulus will work like a charm, I was assessing what some other people were saying about it. I heard Dean Baker this morning say it’s good but not enough, which is a real problem, especially given this new information about PAYGO. Ultimately it will be judged not on its bipartisanshi but its perceived effectiveness, so now would be the time to make sure the damn thing works.

One bite at the apple would be very bad. The thing about PAYGO, though, is that the biggest champion of it in the Congress, probably, is Russ Feingold. In one sense PAYGO can restrict progressive spending; in another it can force taxes on millionaires. I believe there was a vote last year where substantial amounts of Blue Dogs in fact voted for taxes on millionaires. So I’m not totally freaked out by that… yet.

.